ELIMINATION OF MIDDLE EAST'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION STRESSED IN DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE DEBATE
Press Release
GA/DIS/3116/
ELIMINATION OF MIDDLE EAST'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION STRESSED IN DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE DEBATE
19981022 CORRECTIONOn page 17 of Press Release GA/DIS/3116 issued 20 October, the statement in right of reply by the representative of Ethiopia should read as follows:
The representative of Ethiopia, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said that the tone and content of the statement made by the representative of Eritrea should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the Eritrean behaviour of deception and prevarication.
He said that in its war of aggression against Ethiopia, the Eritrean regime had shown its total disregard for international humanitarian law by deliberately targeting and attacking civilian targets. The aerial bombardment with napalm and cluster bombs of an elementary school in broad daylight on 5 June in the city of Mekelle was a case in point. As a result of that barbaric act, 51 schoolchildren were killed and 146 others were brutally wounded.
The Eritrean Government, of course, had no regret for what it did, he said. Its officials, including those at the highest political level, had shamelessly attempted to justify that barbaric act by saying, "war has no rules". Despite the denial and bizarre attempt to portray the victim of their aggression, Ethiopia, as an aggressor, Eritrea's aggression against Ethiopia and its irresponsible actions and behaviour were no longer a secret to anyone. The entire world knew the facts. The Eritrean authorities themselves also knew the facts, in spite of their persistent attempts to confuse and hoodwink the international community.
He cited a number of major initiatives and proposals made by common friends, as well as by the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the Security Council. Those included the proposal by the United States-Rwandan facilitators, which called on Eritrea to withdraw from the occupied Ethiopian town of Badme and its environs. That was circulated as an official document of the Security Council, S/1998/496. Also, a decision made by the thirty- fourth summit of the OAU heads of State and government, circulated as a
Security Council document S/1998/494, had appealed to both countries to accept and implement the facilitators' recommendations.
He stated further that the Security Council, through its adoption of resolution 1177 (1998), had strongly supported the above decision of the OAU. Finally, the most recent conclusions and findings of the OAU ministerial committee dealing with the crisis had stated and unequivocally confirmed that the town presently under Eritrean occupation, Badme and its environs, were administered by Ethiopia before 12 May and that what happened in Badme between 6 and 12 May constituted a fundamental element of the crisis. The facts clearly demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever who was the aggressor and who was the victim of aggression.
He said his Government had fully accepted all the above-mentioned initiatives, proposals and decisions. But, Eritrea had not. It continued to reject and defy every reasonable proposal and attempt to end the crisis between the two countries. Moreover, the representative of Eritrea had mentioned a fictitious and non-existent "third party verification and report", while deliberately failing to acknowledge the known proposals by the existing third-party facilitators mentioned above, which had already presented the results of their findings with concrete recommendations.
Also, on page 18 of Press Release GA/DIS/3116, the subsequent right of reply by the representative of Ethiopia should read as follows:
The representative of Ethiopia, speaking again in exercise of the right of reply, said that his earlier response had presented concrete evidence and relevant documentation that had clearly showed the Eritrean Government had indeed committed an act of aggression against Ethiopia. The facts spoke for themselves. To that representative's invitation for a review through third party verification, he would reiterate that there had been proposals and decisions from third-parties that the Eritrean Government, unlike his own, had yet to implement.
He said that although the Eritrean representative had now publicly confirmed the truth concerning the barbarous aerial bombardment of an elementary school in Mekelle, the Government of Eritrea had not expressed any regret for what it had done. On the contrary, it had chosen to justify that act by declaring, at the highest political levels, that war knew no rules. That was unacceptable. War had rules and the Committee should tell them so.
He said that the representative of Eritrea had now said that the OAU was seized of the matter. He had tried to remind him of that in his first intervention, when that representative, in total disregard for OAU decisions and efforts, had talked about a new third-party verification. Yes, the OAU was seized of the matter and it had adopted the important decisions to which
First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3116/Corr.1 11th Meeting (AM) 22 October 1998
he had earlier referred. Eritrea should accept and implement those decisions of the OAU and withdraw its forces from the Ethiopian territory.
That representative's reference to the map was yet another Eritrean attempt to create confusion, he went on. The OAU had provided the relevant answers, namely that Eritrea was the aggressor. It did not require a map to ascertain those facts. The Eritrean Government, therefore, should be told in clear terms that "enough is enough". Eritrean aggression should be undone and its forces must be withdrawn from the Ethiopian territories. Thereafter, the rest would follow, such as negotiation, maps and so forth.
* *** *